It is my humble opinion that the Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L is probably the best lens we've ever used! We've used this lens on weddings, portraits and events and the FL is simply perfect to do it all. Our upcoming weddings are going to be photographed using this lens only as it is perfect for close portraits, formals, family groups photos and receptions. I'm not a huge fan of all the RF lenses, but the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 and RF 50mm 1.2 are simply the best of the bunch, imo. Yes, we tried the RF 85mm f/1.2 and the 28-70mm f/2, but neither have the special sauce of the 50mm 1.2. We haven't tried the EF 85mm f/1.4, but would be interested in that as it could work on the EOS1v too. The RF 50mm 1.2 is destined for legendary status, imo. As a comparison, we tried the EF 50mm 1.2 version too. I think the EF lenses have beautiful character, but not as technically perfect. However, I'd choose character over technical perfection every time. The softer rendering with fringing is noticeable on the EF 50mm 1.2 in certain lighting and at f/1.4 and up, they're close in overall rendering. However, the RF 50mm doesn't have the fringing and softness @f/1.2, but still maintains the character that imo, no other RF lens can match! Obviously, everyone has their own opinions, but for us the Canon RF 50mm is their best lens ever! This is based on personal experience with these lenses and not pixel peeping. I used to pixel peep... Here's a few with the RF 50mm 1.2 @ f/1.2...
The RF 50/1.2 is an amazing piece of glass. So is the RF 85/1.2
The RF50/1.2 is also absolutely amazing for video work. It doesn't get talked about much in that context. It paints beautifully and the footage is glorious. Will be happy to share the music video once in releases.
It got really good reviews when released. I recall the sentiment being it was the best Canon 50 ever, perhaps best of any 50 from the big 3. Better than Zeiss Milvus, and making people really question the top end Zeiss. Sigma Art 50 was the next best for Canon, then the EF 50 1.2. From what I recall.
Still in the EF times, I rather went for EF 85/1.2L than for the 50. Way too much technical weaknesses for the money, although the size was nice. In the end I got myself 50Art. Which was perhaps wiser from the ROI point of view, because I ended up using the 85L much more frequently.
The RF 28-70 F/2L and 85 1.2L are simply stunning as is the RF 50 1.2L. I have all three. I can say without a doubt no 24-70 2.8 from any manufacturer is stunning in any way.
jedibrain wrote:
It got really good reviews when released. I recall the sentiment being it was the best Canon 50 ever, perhaps best of any 50 from the big 3. Better than Zeiss Milvus, and making people really question the top end Zeiss. Sigma Art 50 was the next best for Canon, then the EF 50 1.2. From what I recall.
Brian
Good points! The RF 50mm f/1.2 is like the Otus with AF, it's that good!
CelesteForza wrote:
The RF 28-70 F/2L and 85 1.2L are simply stunning as is the RF 50 1.2L. I have all three. I can say without a doubt no 24-70 2.8 from any manufacturer is stunning in any way.
From a practical standpoint the RF 24-70 is an all around useful lens for the RF mount. It focuses really close-almost macro-like, but I agree, it's not magical like the RF 50mm 1.2., but for everything in between it can't be beat. We used the RF 85mm 1.2, but decided the EF version has a 3D rendering, warts and all that just swayed us to the EF version. In regards to the 28-70mm, we used it for an entire wedding and loved the photos, but wanted a shallower DOF and by zooming a few feet forward or back, we could cover everything the 28-70 can. However, no one makes a lens like the 28-70, so it too, might be considered...legendary.
The thing the RF 28-70L has, IMO, is an unmatched rendering quality vs. the traditional fast standard zooms. And not only because of the shallower depth of focus afforded by the additional stop. It seems to make backgrounds melt away in the same manner that the EF 85 1.2L and EF 50 1.2L do compared to their peers (warts notwithstanding).
I have not gotten to use the RF 50L, but I have heard great things.
Having not used the 28-70 or 85L I can say the RF 50L is amazing. Not just the sharpness but the color, contrast and bokeh are really good. I used the think my 600L and 300L were in a league of their own but this 50 is at least as good.
I went with the FE 50mm f/1.2 GM because of the better AF and less weight. I've hired the RF 50mm f/1.2 L to test it, but I was disappointed my EF 40mm f/1.4 HSM ART autofocuses better than the RF 50mm f/1.2 L.
My best rendering lens is the 105mm f/1.4 Art. For portraits the 50mm GM is second. The 40mm Art can produce lovely images as well, but it's character is less portrait oriented imo. From the images i've seen from the 28-70mm f/2.0 I think that one has a lovely rendering as well.
It's possible I would like the rendering of the RF 50mm f/1.2 L over the rendering of the GM, however, the GM is very nice, and AF is a factor for me. I'm not saying the RF L has horrible or slow AF, but it's not at the level of a 2700 euro lens imo, as it struggles in torture low light situations and suffers from some nervousness, whereas the GM is simply as swift and fast if not faster any Canon f/2.8 L zoom.
Pete73 wrote:
Having not used the 28-70 or 85L I can say the RF 50L is amazing. Not just the sharpness but the color, contrast and bokeh are really good. I used the think my 600L and 300L were in a league of their own but this 50 is at least as good.
steamtrain wrote:
I went with the FE 50mm f/1.2 GM because of the better AF and less weight. I've hired the RF 50mm f/1.2 L to test it, but I was disappointed my EF 40mm f/1.4 HSM ART autofocuses better than the RF 50mm f/1.2 L.
My best rendering lens is the 105mm f/1.4 Art. For portraits the 50mm GM is second. The 40mm Art can produce lovely images as well, but it's character is less portrait oriented imo. From the images i've seen from the 28-70mm f/2.0 I think that one has a lovely rendering as well.
It's possible I would like the rendering of the RF 50mm f/1.2 L over the rendering of the GM, however, the GM is very nice, and AF is a factor for me. I'm not saying the RF L has horrible or slow AF, but it's not at the level of a 2700 euro lens imo, as it struggles in torture low light situations and suffers from some nervousness, whereas the GM is simply as swift and fast if not faster any Canon f/2.8 L zoom. ...Show more →
Great input! The Sony's and Nikon Z's certainly are smaller and lighter and the Art series from Sigma are fantastic! I used the the Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 when it first came out for a shoot and it was incredible! I ultimately gravitated to Canon cameras for their f/1.2's drawing and rendering, ergonomics and menu's. I held another photographers Nikon Z7 at a wedding and it was so much lighter! The RF L primes are surprisingly heavy, but lenses like the F/2 28-70 have a lot of elements to push. As mentioned our favorite lenses are the RF 50mm 1.2, but followed by the EF 35mm f/1.4, EF 85mm f/1.2, EF 135mm f/2, Sony 55mm f/1.8, the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G and the Nikon 105mm f/1.4 and the 105mm DC. All cameras are pretty equal in terms of tech, so I think it's the lenses that set apart the differences and we just love Canon's offerings and colors.
It's been a winner for Canon and appears to have met with considerable approval. Here is a Youtube video from a few years back comparing the RF 50/1.2 L with Leica's SL 50/2 APO. Comparisons like this one should be everywhere to show just how different lenses are, in many key respects. But it takes photographers to do it, not lens reviewers, it seems.
steamtrain wrote:
I'm not saying the RF L has horrible or slow AF, but it's not at the level of a 2700 euro lens imo, as it struggles in torture low light situations and suffers from some nervousness,
One thing that is not well known is that Canon RF lenses (and some newer EF lenses) can benefit from firmware updates. For example, for the RF 50L:
johnld wrote:
It is my humble opinion that the Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L is probably the best lens we've ever used!
...
Here's a few with the RF 50mm 1.2 @ f/1.2...
I'm not really sure who 'we' is, but I am a bit curious how you chose your example images. Do you think this particular set of images illustrates why the lens is better than all the lenses you listed? If so, I'd be curious to know what qualities the examples show, and how a similar image from another lens might be different. Other than mentioning 'lack of fringing and softness at 1.2', you didn't really come out and say specifically what you like about the lens, other than some of that 'special sauce' sprinkled in.
I think if you could elucidate the qualities of the lens that prompted you to post, it might help others decide if it could be the lens for them. Or not.
CelesteForza wrote:
The RF 28-70 F/2L and 85 1.2L are simply stunning as is the RF 50 1.2L. I have all three. I can say without a doubt no 24-70 2.8 from any manufacturer is stunning in any way.
I would beg to differ. While I am invested in Canon now (and debating buying the 50mm 1.2), I am also a Leica owner. The Leica 24-90mm f/2.8-4 on the SL2 or SL2-S is a special lens. It may not focus as fast as the big 3 and it's a bazooka of a lens, but I would put it up against any zoom for IQ.
Back to the 50mm 1.2, the images I have seen from it remind me of the 50mm APO Leica. That's high praise from me. That's what has me really interested in it even if it is big and heavy.
Jeff wrote:
I'm not really sure who 'we' is, but I am a bit curious how you chose your example images. Do you think this particular set of images illustrates why the lens is better than all the lenses you listed? If so, I'd be curious to know what qualities the examples show, and how a similar image from another lens might be different. Other than mentioning 'lack of fringing and softness at 1.2', you didn't really come out and say specifically what you like about the lens, other than some of that 'special sauce' sprinkled in.
I think if you could elucidate the qualities of the lens that prompted you to post, it might help others decide if it could be the lens for them. Or not....Show more →
My personal views aren't meant to produce results for others in deciding what to purchase. There's YT for that!
These are simply personal experiences with this specific lens (along with others) that we have used in shooting thousands of professional photographs from weddings, events, editorials and portraits, that I and my associate photographers (we) have used. I'm sure there are other lenses that are technically better. I'm simply smitten with the RF 50's ability to focus at f/1.2 with sublime OOF backgrounds with little falloff (vignetting) compared to other lenses we've used. This is not a technical comparison by any means as I gave up pixel peeping when I started to become a lazy digital photographer relying on technology to make me a better photographer.
I've mentioned rendering or drawing of the lens which is my attempt at elucidating the beautiful qualities of the RF 50mm 1.2, but mentioning lack of fringing or softness at f/1.2 compared to the EF version is kinda specific don't you think? These photos are probably the least useful in showing the amazing qualities of the lens at f/1.2., but for me, it's the falloff and dimensional qualities and the usefulness of a 50mm FL. But, you're right It's probably better to show photos that illustrate the lack of fringing with harsh backlighting at f/1.2, the amazing resolution or the incredible OOF areas, colors and isolation at f/1.2. I can't compare any of the other lenses mentioned because we sold them all in favor of the Canon RF 50mm f/1.2. The best RF lens we have ever used!
crf59 wrote:
I would beg to differ. While I am invested in Canon now (and debating buying the 50mm 1.2), I am also a Leica owner. The Leica 24-90mm f/2.8-4 on the SL2 or SL2-S is a special lens. It may not focus as fast as the big 3 and it's a bazooka of a lens, but I would put it up against any zoom for IQ.
Back to the 50mm 1.2, the images I have seen from it remind me of the 50mm APO Leica. That's high praise from me. That's what has me really interested in it even if it is big and heavy.
crf59 wrote:
I would beg to differ. While I am invested in Canon now (and debating buying the 50mm 1.2), I am also a Leica owner. The Leica 24-90mm f/2.8-4 on the SL2 or SL2-S is a special lens. It may not focus as fast as the big 3 and it's a bazooka of a lens, but I would put it up against any zoom for IQ.
Back to the 50mm 1.2, the images I have seen from it remind me of the 50mm APO Leica. That's high praise from me. That's what has me really interested in it even if it is big and heavy.
You're comparing an F4 zoom lens to an F2? When I said stunning it was in the context of real world shooting environment, not pixel peeping to the far corner. Comparing an F4 zoom to an F2 zoom is like comparing a luxury car to a sports car. Makes zero sense. BTW I shot Leica M for most of my journalism career and very familiar with Leica M glass.
johnld wrote:
I'm sure there are other lenses that are technically better.
Not so sure about that, at least optically. The RF 50 1.2L is given the same score as the Zeiss Otus by DXO. Maybe Sony or Nikon's (or Leica's) newest can match it as well, but I think it is generally considered one of the best 50 primes available for any system.
It is interesting to see Canon lean into "technical perfection" (cost and size no object seemingly) as a design ethos for the statement RF glass, whereas some of the earlier EF super primes were more "character" lenses, even when new (said while glancing fondly at my EF 50 1.2L). I think Canon maybe telegraphed this approach with the EF 35L II and EF 85L IS, both late-stage EF designs more highly corrected than prior efforts.
We probably should thank Sigma (and even Tamron) for pushing the camera makers to up their game.
